> On 07 Mar 2018, at 23:32, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I also would have liked to advise "UTF-16" instead of "UTF16" as
>> you suggested. However, that required a few more lines and I wanted
>> to keep the change to a minimum. I feel this could be added in a
>> follow up patch.
> I'd say the whole upcase thing belongs to such a follow-up patch if
> that is the case.
>>> On the other hand, if we are not enforcing such a policy decision
>>> but merely explaining a way to work around this check, then it may
>>> be better to give a variant with the smaller difference from the
>>> original (i.e. without up-casing).
>> See example mentioned above: "Utf-16". How would you handle that?
> Dropping LE suffix from "Utf-16LE" or "Utf16LE" would yield "Utf-16"
> or "Utf16" if the advise message does not force policy, or "UTF-16"
> in the canoical form if it does. Is there a problem?
In the case of has_prohibited_utf_bom() you are right as we are
dropping the BE/LE suffix in the advise. However, look at the
is_missing_required_utf_bom() advise. Here we *add* BE/LE.
At this point I thought it would make sense to make the advised
encoding name uppercase in both situations. OK with you?